MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529928055 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n4p234

An Analysis of the Mother and Child Education Program’s Effects on the Relationship between Mothers and Their Five- or Six-Year-Old Children

2016· article· en· W2529928055 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayşegül Ulutaş, Mehmet Kanak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWilcoxon signed-rank testStatistical significancePsychologyMann–Whitney U testTest (biology)Statistical analysisDevelopmental psychologyTurkishDemographyMedicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This study aims to analyze the effect of the Mother and Child Education Program on the relationship between mothers and their five- or six-year-old children. The study used an experimental design of pretest-posttest-monitoring test with a control group. The participants consisted of 50 preschool children aged five or six along with their mothers. Twenty-five were in the experimental group and 25 were in the control group. Members of the experimental group participated in the Mother and Child Education Program once a week for ten weeks. The study data were collected using the Child-Parent Relationship Scale developed by Pianta in 1992 to evaluate the parent-child relationship and adapted to Turkish language by Akgün and Yeşilyaprak (2010). The NCSS 2007 (Number Cruncher Statistical System-Kaysville, Utah, USA) was used for statistical analyses. The Independent Samples t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Paired Samples t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare quantitative data. Significance was evaluated at the levels of p<0.01 and p<0.05. The findings of this study showed a difference between the mother-child relationship scores of the experimental and control groups in favor of the experimental group (p<0.05), and that the effects of the education program continued long-term.</p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207